The point is; this science was developed by a creationists, which means, evolution was not applied. Evolution is still N/A unless you can verify a frame shift mutation that resulted in a new trait. An adaptation is'nt a new trait; it's a pre-existing ability to produce a different protein or delete a molecule from the protein being used.Enjoy.

That's not an answer to my question. My question is how was creation applied there, what application does creationism have????

Although, the vaccines themselves were created and tested!

I don't understand your point. Can you find a single application of science that isn't created and tested???

The point is; this science was developed by a creationists, which means, evolution was not applied. Evolution is still N/A unless you can verify a frame shift mutation that resulted in a new trait. An adaptation is'nt a new trait; it's a pre-existing ability to produce a different protein or delete a molecule from the protein being used.

Here is your original statement:

So the application of evolutionary theory has actually saved lives and lengthened life expectancy.

Our point is that it is not, was not, "evolutionary theory" that saved lives - it is/was biology; plain ol' "biology"; not "evolutionary biology"; just biology - which is a science that both evolutionists and creationists practice. No one worldview has the monopoly on biology!

The point is; this science was developed by a creationists, which means, evolution was not applied. Evolution is still N/A unless you can verify a frame shift mutation that resulted in a new trait. An adaptation is'nt a new trait; it's a pre-existing ability to produce a different protein or delete a molecule from the protein being used.Enjoy.

BTW, this doesn't work always. Often none of the members of a bacteria culture have the necessary mutations to survive in the new medium.

If you went to a public school in a developed nation chances are you were subject to mandatory immunizations(if you were a kid you only knew them as shots ), or if you grew up prior to the mid 90's your parents would get you together with other children, one of which would have chicken pox, and you would all get sick.Ã‚Â

One way of immunizing people is to use an attenuated vaccine which is a living, less virulent form of a pathogen.Ã‚Â Attenuated vaccines are made by cultivating bacteria or viruses in the tissue or eggs of other animals.Ã‚Â After several generations, the pathogen has evolved to survive in its new environment and is less pathogenic towards humans.Ã‚Â At that point, the cultures are harvested and given to humans.Ã‚Â They provoke a response from the immune system, but they aren't deadly.Ã‚Â The desired effect is for the adaptive immune system to "remember" the pathogen and be ready to prevent future infection.

Attenuated vaccines are the standard way of immunizing people from polio, measles, mumps, chicken pox, the flu, tuberculosis, etc.Ã‚Â

Polio killed 6000 Americans in 1916 and left 27000 paralyzed.In Europe the vaccine reduced tuberculosis cases by 90%.The measles was killing 450 people per year in the US prior to development of a vaccine.Ã‚Â Now only those not eligible to receive MMR vaccines have been the only recorded deaths.

This is just three vaccines developed this way.

So the application of evolutionary theory has actually saved lives and lengthened life expectancy.Ã‚Â How many lives has creation science saved???

And this is just one of the applications evolutionary biology has.

I have heard this kind of question before. It is a shell game question.

People make discoveries, not science. Science is the record of those discoveries and theories.

Louis Pascal was a Christian, and famous for his struggle between the existence of the unseen God and the nature of empirical science. His decision at the end was that probability was on the side of the existence of God.

Pascal invented the polio vaccine, and used the principles tharock has adequately presented to us.

Even though the minority, the people who believe not only in the existence of God, but in scripture, creative fiat of all things, and the deluge, can also do science. They can understand the ToE (and ToE is not the entirity of science), work within the paradigm, while at the same time making personal interpretations according to the deluge and adaptation within created kinds.

But to deal with adaptation within species versus the slow gradual change from one type of organism to another. Why do these pathogens never become anything but a different variation of the same basic kind? If adaptation to environment, along with the principles of speciation brings unlimited change, then evolutionary biologists should be able to find a series of environments and circumstances that will change a bacteria into a protist. Or develop a non flying animal into a flying animal If these series of environments can not even be proposed by intelligence, then how does the unguided series of past environments produce macroevolution? This is why in my mind, on the grounds of science and logic alone, without any to do with scripture, evolution will continue to be an academically and politically advantaged, well funded fantasy, with no real empirical demonstration of truth. The continued attribution of evolution to what is actually adaptation within created kinds will never prove anything.

Evolutionary biology clearly has application.Ã‚Â Does creationism???Forming a fundamentally different strain of a virus or bacteria is micro evolution??Ã‚Â Well what would macro evolution be in a virus or bacteria???

The bible does... a persons treasure is where his heart is. Eternal->Temporary; Mortal and Immortal... Knowledge comes from a mind. I often say evolutionary biology is a Goliath without a head. Some people (Natural Man/some Atheists) see nonaturalism/nonempericalism as nonscience. There are the classical sciences and social sciences. Robert Boyle, Isaac Newton The E/C debate has nothing to do with intelligence but its a heart problem.

I have heard this kind of question before. It is a shell game question.

People make discoveries, not science. Science is the record of those discoveries and theories.

Louis Pascal was a Christian, and famous for his struggle between the existence of the unseen God and the nature of empirical science. His decision at the end was that probability was on the side of the existence of God.

Pascal invented the polio vaccine, and used the principles tharock has adequately presented to us.

Even though the minority, the people who believe not only in the existence of God, but in scripture, creative fiat of all things, and the deluge, can also do science. They can understand the ToE (and ToE is not the entirity of science), work within the paradigm, while at the same time making personal interpretations according to the deluge and adaptation within created kinds.

But to deal with adaptation within species versus the slow gradual change from one type of organism to another. Why do these pathogens never become anything but a different variation of the same basic kind? If adaptation to environment, along with the principles of speciation brings unlimited change, then evolutionary biologists should be able to find a series of environments and circumstances that will change a bacteria into a protist. Or develop a non flying animal into a flying animal If these series of environments can not even be proposed by intelligence, then how does the unguided series of past environments produce macroevolution? This is why in my mind, on the grounds of science and logic alone, without any to do with scripture, evolution will continue to be an academically and politically advantaged, well funded fantasy, with no real empirical demonstration of truth. The continued attribution of evolution to what is actually adaptation within created kinds will never prove anything.

Are you talking about Louis Pasteur still or Blaise Pascal?? The polio vaccine was developed in the 50's long after both men had died.

So the application of evolutionary theory has actually saved lives and lengthened life expectancy.

Our point is that it is not, was not, "evolutionary theory" that saved lives - it is/was biology; plain ol' "biology"; not "evolutionary biology"; just biology - which is a science that both evolutionists and creationists practice. No one worldview has the monopoly on biology!

Well I have to agree with Bob here. It's simply good'ol plain biology basics and the study of biology and how it works and how it can be used, minus any biased philosophy interjected into it. This goes for both Creationist dogma as well as Evolutionist dogma. Biology should be kept in the context of how it works, what functional componants are involved whether studying a single bacteria, or an entire complex ecosystem. Failure to actually do this is evidenced by the FACT that our planet Earth's environment is on the blink and it's this world's evolutionary thinking among other things that has put it there.

Just backing up to the original idea of the wonders of "evolutionary applications" benefiting humankind, how could (and I'm quoting the good Reverend Richard Dawkins here) " . . blind, pointless, pitiless, indifference without purpose or intent." be of any benefit in trying to help humankind ? How can you apply any type randomness to any type of experiment for the purpose of accomplishing an intelligent set out goal which does have intent and purpose as a motivating factor ?

Then there is Mr Randolph Nesse is a huge proponant of "Evolutionary Applications" into the Medical field. I believe someone here has already posted a link to an article where this genius spewed out this pseudo-intellectual statement.

"Nesse says that progress is being hampered by the fact that many medics still think of the body as a machine designed by an engineer, when in fact it is a "bundle of compromises ... designed to maximise reproduction, not health".

So "the human body is nothing more than a bundle of careful compromises" ? Here's the translation of what he actually meant here.

"The human body is nothing more than lucky random copying errors"

That's one of the most irresponsible statements a supposed educated individual could ever make. So Medics are wrong for looking at the human body as something that was designed by an engineer ? Who would you rather have working on you in an emergency ?

You know there have been some doctors who have actually used randomness in their practice and they've been exposed at being some of the worst medical practioning frauds/quacks around. Take for example the doctor who prescribes drug after drug to cure a patient because they really have no clue what was wrong with them in the first place. Hence throwing drugs at the symtoms should eventually do the trick. The more responsible course the doctor should have taken is to admit he doesn't know what is wrong, actually go back and research real specific biology in this case and find out. however if there isn't enough time for the patient, then consult or recommend someone who does know. So evolutionary practice from a materialist standpoint is to simply treat the symtoms as opposed to the cause. And this is where the subject of morality comes into this discussion because it is impossible to dismiss it.

Take as an example AIDS. "Evolutionary Applications" in the Medical field are bent on combating AIDS as a major priority. Nothing wrong with that, but what is wrong is that they take a Marxian approach to the problem. Most "Evolutionary Applied" science to combating AIDS is to give clean needles to drug addicts. Also, "Evolutionary Applied" science for combating AIDS is to pass out condoms. However, the real solution is to teach peple to respect moral laws, but this is taboo in the evolutionary applied medical fields. Why ???????? Because that is simply being judgemental and imposing your morality on someone else's freewill. It doesn't matter that the freewilled exercise for someone's lustful pursuit anal s@x or promiscuous heterosexual behavior has devastated the freewill of the innocent children born to AIDS infected mothers who were themselves victims of an unfaithful husband. No those things are absolutely never touched on. Most evolutionary applied medical science is about treating the symtoms as opposed to erraticating the causes. This follows evolutionary applied science M.O. which basically is a power and wealth driven animalistic beast. The insatiable desire for more money/grants, etc. This is evidenced by Mr Nesse's next statement.

"There is no question about the importance of applied evolution. The trouble is, if biologists themselves are only just waking up to how relevant and crucial evolution can be, what hope is there of educating the leaders and policy makers who need to understand and act upon this research? Not much, I fear."

Evolutionary phylogeny is used to predict the purpose of genes making genome sequencing easier.

Just backing up to the original idea of the wonders of "evolutionary applications" benefiting humankind, how could (and I'm quoting the good Reverend Richard Dawkins here) " . . blind, pointless, pitiless, indifference without purpose or intent." be of any benefit in trying to help humankind ? How can you apply any type randomness to any type of experiment for the purpose of accomplishing an intelligent set out goal which does have intent and purpose as a motivating factor ?

Running water moves without purpose, but we've managed to use to generate electricity.

Well I have to agree with Bob here. It's simply good'ol plain biology basics and the study of biology and how it works and how it can be used, minus any biased philosophy interjected into it. This goes for both Creationist dogma as well as Evolutionist dogma. Biology should be kept in the context of how it works, what functional componants are involved whether studying a single bacteria, or an entire complex ecosystem. Failure to actually do this is evidenced by the FACT that our planet Earth's environment is on the blink and it's this world's evolutionary thinking among other things that has put it there.

Which part of plain old biology is being used here that isn't part of evolutionary theory.

That is'nt the thread topic. Were still wanting to know why equivocation should be considered evolution. I don't know of a single science that is dependent on lizards evolving feathers.

But if you insist upon a science purely derived from the assumption of created kinds, then - Taxonomy - would be a good one.

Linnaeus believed that he was classifying God's creation and was not trying to express any deeper relationships. He is frequently quoted to have said God created, Linnaeus organized.

Evolutionary phylogeny is used to predict the purpose of genes making genome sequencing easier.

Circular reasoning is'nt applying evolution. A Creationists could just as easily predict the same thing based on the assumption of common design.

In fact, it was a creationists "Gregor Mendel" ,who tested the assumptions of both models and falsified common descent by natural selection with the "Law of Heredity" he discovered. Consequently, his science was ignored in favor of Darwin's rhetoric.

That is'nt the thread topic. Were still wanting to know why equivocation should be considered evolution. I don't know of a single science that is dependent on lizards evolving feathers.

Haven't equivocated.

Circular reasoning is'nt applying evolution. A Creationists could just as easily predict the same thing based on the assumption of common design

Not quite. Creationists don't accept phylogeny, but if you disagree, by all means link me a creationist paper demonstrating how accurately common design can predict gene function.

In fact, it was a creationists "Gregor Mendel" ,who tested the assumptions of both models and falsified common descent by natural selection with the "Law of Heredity" he discovered. Consequently, his science was ignored in favor of Darwin's rhetoric.

Mendelian genetics and natural selection have nothing to do with each other. Mendel's contribution to genetics are well know, however.

SourceEvolutionists still have'nt verified an increase of genetic information, even after accepting genetics into their model.Enjoy.

We're not talking about that. What are the applications of creation science???

Martemius, remember your thread asking for evidence of a young universe???

You have if your still trying to call adaptation evolution. There is no evidence that Attenuated vaccines have gained new genetic information.

Mendelian genetics and natural selection have nothing to do with each other.

It does if evolution is true. Genes don't just poof into existance; they are inherited from ancestors and evolution must account for them somehow.

We're not talking about that. What are the applications of creation science???

Origin models make predictions, which are then interpreted by the available data. God created in six days and that was applied during those six days. How could anyone apply what God alone has the power to do?

Evolutionary phylogeny is used to predict the purpose of genes making genome sequencing easier.

How can evolutionary randomness predict anything ??? Even a gambler would never benefit from real world evolutionary philosophy.

We already know that DNA has genetic engineering algorthyms which intelligently direct change with purpose and intent. Evolution employs nothing but blind, pointless, pitiless indifference without purpose or intent. Isn't it ironic that atheists believe in an entire array of theories that quite obviously SHOULD be demonstrable... but which have never been demonstrated. How can you apply something that has never been demonstrated ??????

Running water moves without purpose, but we've managed to use to generate electricity.

So what does this have to do with evolutionary biology ????? This is just physics and chemistry. More important than this, you still need to show where nothing more than physics and chemicals creates an informational code. That is far more important than any material substrate arguement pursuit.

BTW, do you believe in the Biblical flood ???? I just noticed you claim belief in God in your profile. The username "Scanman" believed as you do with regards that God used the mechanisms of evolution for accomplishing creation, but he also made fun of the Biblical flood and other areas of the Bible which lead me to conclude that in reality he was really an atheist in desguise and registered purposefully for nothing more than gumming up the works when it came to true discussion. (just my take) Are you aware of the massive implications for research and development in designing applications after the ancient hydrological cycle ????? It is in reality a superior one as compared to what we have today and scientists are unknowingly discovering these proofs (Thanks to Global Warming uncovering evidence) and don't know how to explain the phenomena they are finding. As usual they are scrambling to find a rationalistic explanation for why the ancient world before the extinction event was a minerotrophic system as opposed to the present climate water cycle we only have knowledge through our own personal experience.

Personally I've made it 25 years to make it my business in researching how such a system could have existed and worked. The findings are phenomenal and have major applications towards greenhouse management, agriculture, landscaping and believe it or not clean energy creation without pollution. Did you know all the mechanisms are still basically in place ???? It's simply timing frequency and resonance of the Earth's axis (Much like an automobile's distributorwhich can be retarded or advanced) were thrown off by the tectonic upheaval caused by the release of massive volumes of water. The problem with the free energy is that it could well be free for everyone and that somply doesn't bode well from a monitary standpoint with the big business enitites that control everything. Unfortunately two of the most prevalent evolutionary applications tend to stifle such developments. That would be "Selfishness & Greed" and if you don't believe that those qualities are part of evolutionary applications, then please read Richard Dawkin's book, "The Selfish Gene".

Which part of plain old biology is being used here that isn't part of evolutionary theory.

Do you really want a list of how mankind's history has fared when real pure unadulterated evolutionary applications have been employed ?????

Eugenics: This has done more to damage humanity as far as practical evolutionary applications more than anything else. Research an individual named Eugene Fischer. A major proponant of "Survival of the fittest" Eugenics programs. He was on hand when the German government obliterated over 60,000 black Africans in their colony known today as Namibia. He next opened the "Race Biological Institute" in Uppsala, Sweden which eventually brought forced sterilization to almost 80,000 people from the end of WWII to 1976. After he opened the Swedish Institute in 1922, he next opened the "Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics" in Berlin, Germany in 1927. I guess we know what the results were of those endeavors. Then we have evolutionary applications of the genocide of Australian aboriginies. We have Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot and others who have used evolutionary natural selection of Survival of the fittest to apply what they believed was a directed evolutionary benefit to humanity.

We're not talking about that. What are the applications of creation science???

The actual title of your own thread is "Evolution Applied, It's useful???"

Now you are asking, even demanding = What are the applications of creation science???

Well again, applications of creative scientific invention would be studying the intricately brilliantly designed mechanisms of the natural world and making an exactly copy representation of some componants of what was found and applying it to every day life that would benefit all mankind. For example the building of a city takes into consideration all the understanding of various engineering facts and mathematics in building structures contained in nature and copying these by actually designing them ourselves for use and real world functionality. The study of electromagetism, hydrology , etc helps in regards a cities infrastructure.

Now let's take an evolutionary applications approach to constructing a city. Find somewhere in the world the largest garbage dump and/or Salvage yard loaded with all sort of toxic waste and raw chemicals and any assortment of wood pieces, metal scaps, plastics, etc and after cordinating a safe area so no one gets injured, see if you can initialte a huge "Big Bang" type explosion and see if a city just doesn't randomly magically morph with all it's housing complexes, industrial section and business districts along with all manner of plumbing, sewer, communications, and electrical grid and networks that can be of use to humankind.

That is the only way you could apply anything to do with evolutionary applicable philosophy.

Now let's take an evolutionary applications approach to constructing a city. Find somewhere in the world the largest garbage dump and/or Salvage yard loaded with all sort of toxic waste and raw chemicals and any assortment of wood pieces, metal scaps, plastics, etc and after cordinating a safe area so no one gets injured, see if you can initialte a huge "Big Bang" type explosion and see if a city just doesn't randomly magically morph with all it's housing complexes, industrial section and business districts along with all manner of plumbing, sewer, communications, and electrical grid and networks that can be of use to humankind.

I'm sorry to say this Eocene, but that has to be one most ignorant things I've read on here.

1. Cities are human constructs which are precisely controlled in the direction they head.

2. The big bang was the rapid expansion of space, not a fiery explosion. A fiery explosion consumes matter thus any houses or what-have-you will not form from this. For you to even state that is baffling.